New Polemic on the Philosophical Front

by “HONGQI’S” CORRESPONDENT

[This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 7, #37, Sept. 11,
1964, pp. 9-12, as transcribed and posted on the WWW.WENGEWANG.ORG
web site. Our thanks to them for allowing us to post it here,
with only a few minor stylistic changes (such as the typeface).]

A NEW and heated polemic has developed on the
philosophical front in China; it concerns the concepts of “one divides into
two”* and “two combines into one.”

This debate is a struggle between those who are
for and those who are against materialist dialectics, a struggle between two world
outlooks - the proletarian world outlook and the bourgeois world outlook. Those
who maintain that “one divides into two” is the fundamental law of things stand
on the side of materialist dialectics; those who maintain that the fundamental
law of things is that “two combine into one” stand in direct opposition to
materialist dialectics. The two sides draw a clear line of demarcation between
themselves and their arguments are directly opposed to each other. This polemic
is an ideological reflection of an acute and complex class struggle now being
waged both internationally and in China.

Counting from May 29, the date of publication
in the newspaper Guangming Ribao of the article “‘One Divides Into Two’
and ‘Two Combine Into One,’” by Comrades Ai Heng-wu and Lin Ching-shan, this
debate has already been going on for three months. In order to get a better
understanding of the present state of this polemic and in order to promote it,
the Hongqi [Red Flag] Editorial Department organized a forum on August
24-25 attended by cadres and students from the Higher Party School. Our
correspondent subsequently interviewed a number of the comrades concerned.

The following is a report on the forum and
interviews.

The Polemic Was Provoked by Comrade Yang Hsien-chen

Comrades attending the forum stated that the
polemic had started in the Higher Party School long before the publication of
the article by Ai Heng-wu and Lin Chingshan.

Recalling events in the last few years, they
all noted that, in line with the situation in the class struggle at home and
internationally, the Party had strengthened its propaganda on the dialectical
materialist concept that “one divides into two.”

Our Party has pointed out that everything
tends to divide itself into two. And theories are no exception; they also tend
to divide. Wherever there is a revolutionary, scientific theory, its antithesis,
a counter-revolutionary, anti-scientific theory, is bound to arise in the course
of its development. As modern society is divided into classes and as the
difference between progressive and backward groups will continue far into the
future, the emergence of such antitheses is inevitable.

The Party has further pointed out: The history
of the international communist movement demonstrates that like everything else,
the international working-class movement tends to divide itself into two. The
class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is inevitably
reflected in the communist ranks. It is inevitable that opportunism of one kind
or another should arise in the course of development of the communist movement,
that opportunists should engage in splitting activities against Marxism-Leninism
and that Marxist-Leninists should wage struggles against opportunism and
splittism. It is precisely through such struggles of opposites that
Marxism-Leninism and the international working-class movement have developed.

The Party has criticized the so-called “new
concept” advanced by modern revisionism with regard to the current international
situation, pointing out that this concept implies that in the present-day world
antagonistic social contradictions of all kinds are waning, and that
contradictory social forces are tending to unite themselves into a single whole.
For instance, they hold that the conflicting forces represented by the socialist
system and the capitalist system, by the socialist camp and the imperialist camp,
by one imperialist country and another, by the imperialist countries and oppressed
nations, by the bourgeoisie on the one hand and the proletariat and other
laboring people on the other in the capitalist countries, by the different
monopoly groups in the imperialist countries, as well as the contradictions
within socialist countries - that all these are uniting or on the way to uniting
into a single whole.

The revolutionary dialectical method summed up
in the concept that “one divides into two” has been grasped more and more fully
by our comrades and the masses to become a powerful ideological instrument for
achieving a correct understanding of the present situation in the class struggle
both domestic and international. It helps people to recognize that the
contradiction and struggle between imperialism and the revolutionary people of
the world are irreconcilable, and that the contradiction and struggle between
Marxism-Leninism and modern revisionism are irreconcilable. It enhances people’s
courage in opposing imperialism, the reactionaries in various countries, and in
fighting modern revisionism. It increases people’s confidence in victory.

But, while our Party is strengthening its
propaganda on the revolutionary dialectics of “one divides into two,” Comrade
Yang Hsien-chen talks a lot about the concept of “two combine into one,” thus
setting up another platform opposite to that of the Party.

Comrade Yang Hsien-chen’s idea of reconciling
contradictions and negating struggles was formed a long time ago. In November
1961 when lecturing in the Higher Party School, he said: “The unity of opposites,
the unity of contradictions means: The two opposites are inseparably connected.”
“What we want to learn from dialectics is how to connect two opposite ideas.”

Since the Party strengthened its propaganda on
the concept of “one divides into two,” Comrade Yang Hsien-chen has disseminated
his idea of reconciling contradictions with even greater zeal. In November 1963,
he generalized his idea as “two combine into one,” and made this public while
lecturing in the Higher Party School.

In April 1964, in a lecture to a class of
Sinkiang students at the Higher Party School, he further developed this thesis,
making it more “systematic,” and more “complete.”

Subsequently, he attempted by every means to
propagate this thesis, trying to thrust in his anti-dialectical viewpoint
wherever possible.

Comrade Li Ming, lecturer of the Research and
Teaching Group in Philosophy, also publicized Comrade Yang’s thesis in the
classroom. On May 14, in a class, Li declared that there had been too much talk
about “one dividing into two,” and too little about “two combining into one.” He
even encouraged his class to write articles propagating this latter concept. What
Li Ming actually meant was that there had been too much talk about Marxism-Leninism,
about the revolutionary dialectics of Mao Tsetung’s thinking, and too little about
Comrade Yang Hsien-chen’s anti-dialectical views. According to him, more articles
should be written on Yang’s anti-dialectical views.

Both Ai Heng-wu and Lin Ching-shan said that
while writing their article, they several times consulted Comrade Yang Hsien-chen.
Yang helped them to revise it. Li Ming, too, twice gave suggestions for the article
and revised it. Ai Heng-wu recalled that when they heard that the concept that
“two combine into one” was described as a deliberate attempt to put over something
new and different, and felt uncertain whether to publish their article or not, they
went to Yang. Yang said: “Who said that it is something new and different? Whoever
said that is ignorant.” He continued: “The concept that ‘two combine into one’ is
a matter of world outlook; the concept that ‘one divides into two’ is a matter of
methodology.” Soon after, he again encouraged Ai and Lin, saying: “The viewpoint
of your article is well-founded; send it out!”

In this way. Comrade Yang Hsien-chen’s concept
that “two combine into one” was spread from the Higher Party School and made
public through the article by Ai Heng-wu and Lin Ching-shan. Thus the debate
between “one divides into two” and “two combine into one” was unfolded in the
press.

This polemic on the philosophical front was
therefore provoked by Comrade Yang Hsien-chen.

Criticism and Repudiation of Comrade Yang Hsien-chen’s Concept

After the article by Ai Heng-wu and Lin
Ching-shan was published in Guangming Ribao, the leading comrades in the
Higher Party School, seeing that the debate involved a matter of principle and
that it was a debate between revolutionary dialectics and anti-dialectics, asked
the Research and Teaching Group in Philosophy to hold a discussion on it. When
Comrade Yang Hsien-chen was told of this by Li Ming, he was very displeased and
angry.

On July 17, Comrades Wang Chung and Kuo Pei-heng
wrote an article in Renmin Ribao, exposing and criticizing Yang’s concept
that “two combine into one.”

At the same time, quite a number of comrades in
the Higher Party School rebutted this concept in discussions and in articles in
the school magazine and papers. Yet there were still some who insisted that it
was correct.

Comrade Yang Hsien-chen’s concept that “two
combine into one” has also evoked a great deal of controversy among the general
public. Some people support it; but, many criticize and reject it. Up to the end
of August, more than 90 articles on the subject had been published in newspapers
and in magazines, both national and local. Theoretical workers in Party schools,
universities and colleges, and research institutes in various places have held
forums on it.

At the present time the central question in
the debate is whether or not to recognize the law of the unity of opposites as
the fundamental law of objective things, and materialist dialectics as the world
outlook of the proletariat.

The majority of the students and staff workers
of the Higher Party School have come to see clearly from the words and deeds of
Yang Hsien-chen and others that it is not fortuitous that Comrade Yang Hsien-chen
should at this time have made public the concept that “two combine into one.” He
has done this with the aim and plan of pitting the reactionary bourgeois world
outlook against the proletarian world outlook of materialist dialectics.

Participants in the forum pointed out that Yang
Hsien-chen had all along, repeatedly and painstakingly, propagated the idea that
“the tendency in everything is for ‘two to combine into one.’” He had talked with
great zeal about “the inseparable connection” between antitheses, the
“inseparability” of things, and asserted that the task of studying the unity of
opposites lies solely in seeking “common demands,” or “seeking common ground while
reserving differences.” If things are viewed in the light of his concept that
“two combine into one,” their internal contradictions disappear and the struggle
of opposites within them disappears; the concept that one side of a contradiction
must of necessity overcome the other side, that the outcome of struggle is the
destruction of the old unity and the emergence of a new unity, and that old
things are replaced by the new - all this, too, disappears. In this way,
Marxist-Leninist materialist dialectics is completely negated.

The concept that “one divides into two” is the
kernel of the revolutionary philosophy of materialist dialectics, the world
outlook of the proletariat. Using this world outlook to apprehend things, the
proletariat recognizes that contradictions are inherent in everything, that the
two sides of a contradiction are in a state both of unity and of struggle, and
that contradiction is the motive force in the development of things. While the
identity of opposites is relative, their struggle is absolute. Therefore, the
task of materialist dialectics has never been to cover up contradictions, but to
disclose them, to discover the correct method for resolving them and to accelerate
their transformation, in order to bring about the revolutionary transformation
of the world. Using the world outlook of materialist dialectics to analyze class
societies, the proletariat recognizes class contradiction and class struggle; it
recognizes class struggle as the motive force of social development; it firmly
maintains that the proletariat must carry out the class struggle through to the
end and so bring about the transformation of society.

But to view relations between the various
classes of society in accordance with the concept that “two combine into one” as
advocated by Comrade Yang Hsien-chen will inevitably lead to obscuring the
boundaries between classes, and to repudiating the class struggle, and thus lead
to the theory of class conciliation.

Comrades Yang Hsien-chen, Ai Heng-wu and Lin
Ching-shan gave an intolerably distorted picture of the basis on which the Party
maps out its principles, lines and policies. They arbitrarily asserted that the
Party’s general line for socialist construction, the principles of political life
of the Party and the State, the Party’s economic, foreign and cultural policies,
etc., were all worked out in accordance with their concept that “two combine into
one.” Thus, they themselves have raised a fundamental question of political
principle. However, the defenders of Yang Hsien-chen’s concept that “two combine
into one” are unwilling to admit that a question of political principle is
involved. Actuated by ulterior motives, they have even said that an academic
question should not be turned into a political question.

Some comrades maintain that Comrade Yang
Hsien-chen described the concept that “two combine into one” as a matter of world
outlook and the concept that “one divides into two” as a matter of methodology,
and point out that this runs completely counter to the materialist theory of the
unity of world outlook and methodology. The fact that Comrade Yang Hsien-chen has
time and again stressed that the aim of studying the dialectical method “is to
acquire the ability to unite into one two opposite ideas.” This precisely shows
the complete unity of his world outlook and his methodology; both conform to the
concept that “two combine into one.”

Comrade Mao Tse-tung has taught us:

It is only the reactionary ruling classes of
the past and present, and the metaphysicians in their service, who regard
opposites not as living, conditional, mobile and transforming themselves into
one another, but as dead and rigid, and they propagate this fallacy everywhere
to delude the masses of the people, thus seeking to perpetuate their rule.
Comrade Yang Hsien-chen’s concept that “two combine into one” treats the
connections between the two sides in a contradiction as precisely “dead and
rigid things.” Utilizing every opportunity to disseminate this kind of view, he
has tried to mislead many people, thus playing a role which serves the
reactionary classes.

In the debate, some people made statements
which, though differing slightly, coincide in the main with Comrade Yang
Hsien-chen’s concept that “two combine into one.” For example, some said that
the controversy is merely concerned with phraseology or usage; and added that
anyone can make a slip or two when lecturing in the classroom. Others,
pretending to be fair and to see the question from all sides, have advanced
the idea of using the concept that “two combine into one” to supplement the
concept that “one divides into two,” thus making the former into one aspect of
the law of unity of opposites; they assert that only in this way can we avoid
“one-sidedness.” Others again, pretending to make a concrete analysis of
contradictions, divide contradictions into two types: Those which have “unity
as their main feature,” and those which have “struggle as their main feature,”
claiming that the concept that “two combines into one” should be used in
handling contradictions which have “unity as the main feature.” Still others
describe the concept that “one divides into two” as a means of analysis and
the concept of “two combine into one” as a means of generalization, asserting
that each is a component part of the dialectical method of cognition. All
these assertions, however, are nothing but attempts to defend the thesis that
“two combine into one.”

Many comrades pointed out that the
Marxist-Leninist concept that “one divides into two” has its definite meaning
and that the concept that “two combine into one” put forward by Yang Hsien-chen,
likewise, has its definite meaning. As a technical term, “one divides into two”
very accurately, vividly and colloquially expresses the kernel of dialectics,
that is, the essence of the law of the unity of opposites, whereas the concept
that “two combine into one” put forward by Yang Hsien-chen is systematic
metaphysics from beginning to end. These are two fundamentally opposite world
outlooks. How can one possibly mix them together and not distinguish the one
from the other?

Class Struggle in the Realm of Ideology

At the forum, many comrades touched upon the
great significance of this debate in philosophy.

Philosophy is a part of social ideology; it
has its distinct Party character, that is, class character. The struggle on the
philosophical front invariably reflects class struggle on the economic and
political fronts. In class struggle, different classes, proceeding from their
respective class interests, are bound to put forward different points of view
and make philosophical generalizations of these viewpoints, which are either
revolutionary or reactionary. There is the revolutionary philosophy of the
proletariat, and there is the reactionary philosophy of the bourgeoisie. Thus,
the struggle between the two antagonistic groups is reflected on the
philosophical front. Those individuals within the ranks of the proletariat who
have a bourgeois world outlook or who are influenced by the bourgeois world
outlook, likewise often use bourgeois philosophy to oppose the revolutionary
philosophy of the proletariat.

At the present time, internationally, the
revolutionary struggle waged by the people of various countries is developing
vigorously against imperialism, headed by the United States, and its lackeys.
Inside the international communist movement, a fierce struggle is being waged
between Marxism-Leninism and modern revisionism. In our country, the class
struggle between the proletariat on the one hand and the bourgeoisie and the
remnant feudal forces on the other, as well as the struggle between the
socialist and capitalist roads have advanced to a new, deep-going stage.
Confronted with this situation in the class struggle internationally and at
home the Central Committee of the Party and Comrade Mao Tse-tung place great
emphasis on using the concept that “one divides into two” and the
Marxist-Leninist theory of the class struggle to combat modern revisionism
and to arm our people and have proposed to crush the offensive launched by
the bourgeoisie and the remnant feudal forces by carrying out a widespread
movement for socialist education in the cities and the countryside. Comrade
Yang Hsien-chen’s propagation of the concept that “two combine into one” at
such a time is precisely and deliberately designed to meet the needs of modern
revisionism and aid the modern revisionists in their propaganda for class
peace and class collaboration, and also for the theory of reconciling
contradictions. It is at this same time deliberately designed to meet the
needs of the bourgeoisie and the remnant feudal forces at home by providing
them with so-called theoretical weapons for resisting the movement for
socialist education.

It has already become very clear that this
new polemic, that concerns the question of who will win over whom on the
philosophical front, is a serious class struggle in the realm of ideology.